Jump to content

Talk:On Horsemanship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I've read this book, and will attempt to do better justice to it than this. Xenophon was a little early in history to deal with Lipizzaners, don't you think? At least 1400 years or so too early :) --Domhail 08:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should not this be moved to Wikiquote? --Ghirla | talk 10:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Xenophon the author died in 355 BC so the book could hardly be written in 350 BC. --Proofreader 10:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page is well done, none the less. Great 'Cliff Notes' version. LT.

I've been making a few corrections to the English, without (I hope) altering the sense. My usual practice would be to try and make the writing more gender-neutral -- here the horse and the rider are both 'he' throughout -- but in this case I have left that alone, because I guess it's very likely that Xenophon wrote it that way originally. S M Woodall (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, though it's sort of a line-by-line analysis. Where Xenophon's descriptions are used, "he" for people probably has to be kept. However, in horse articles, I tend to move to gender-neutral terms like "the" for horses unless it's clear that only a gelding or stallion is used. Mares ARE ridden too -- and in some cultures (like the Bedouin) almost exclusively so. Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Praise

[edit]

Forty five minutes into this episode of Australian national radio's Bush Telegraph the presenter, historian Michael Cathcart says, "Dear listener, if you're interested in persuing Xenophon, there is actually a fantastic Wikipedia site that basically sumarises On Horsemanship, and it's well worth reading. I was reading it last night; it's incredibly illuminating." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

[edit]

This page contains a mass of content apparently derived from the book itself, with no hint of a reference. Without sources it appears to be nothing but original research. Unless it is cited to independent reliable sources in the fairly near future, I plan to remove it, perhaps replacing it with a skeleton outline of the content of the book. Any objections? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]